III.

Impartiality
CANON 3 IMPARTIALITY IS ESSENTIAL TO THE PROPER DISCHARGE OF THE JUDICIAL
OFFICE. IT APPLIES NOT ONLY TO THE DECISION ITSELF BUT ALSO TO THE PROCESS BY
WHICH THE DECISION IS MADE.

Eunice (Sec1 to Sec 3)

Judicial duties free from bias (Sec. 1)
Promote confidence, impartiality (Sec. 2)
Minimize instances of disqualification (Sec. 3)
(Parayno v. Meneses, 231 SCRA 807) (case in the report)

Sec. 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or prejudice. To sustain a claim of bias
or prejudice, the resulting opinion must be based upon an extrajudicial source: that is, some influence
other than the facts and law presented in the courtroom. In the United States, this is known as the
Extra-Judicial Source Rule.

Sec. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and
enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the
judge and of the judiciary. In disposing of a criminal case, a judge should avoid appearing like an
advocate for either party. It is also improper for the judge to push actively for amicable settlement against
the wishes of the complainant. A judges unwelcome persistence makes the judge vulnerable to
suspicions of favoritism.

Sec. 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so conduct themselves as to minimize the occasions on
which it will be necessary for them to be disqualified from hearing or deciding cases.

The majority view is that the rule of disqualification of judges must yield to demands of necessity.
Simply stated, the rule of necessity means that a judge is not disqualified to sit in a case if there is no
other judge available to hear and decide the case.

For example, members of the Supreme Court were entitled to adjudicate the validity of a statue placing a
limit of 5 percent in the costs of living increase for judges, where it was apparent that all state judges had
at least an involuntarily financial interest in the case Actual disqualification of a member of a court of
last resort will not excuse the member from performing his official duty if failure to do so would result in a
denial of a litigant's constitutional right to have a question, properly presented the court, adjudicated. In
other words, when all judges would be disqualified, disqualification will not be permitted to destroy the
only tribunal with power in the premises. The doctrine operates on the principle that a basic judge is
better than no judge at all. Under such circumstances, it is the duty of the disqualified judge to hear and
decide the controversy, however disagreeable it may be.
(Parayno v. Meneses, 231 SCRA 807) (case in the report)

Achie KM (Sec 4 to Sec 4)

Public comments pending and impending case
(Sec. 4)
Disqualifications (Sec. 5)
Remittal of disqualifications (Sec. 6)
(Lorenzo v. Marquez (1988))

Sec. 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before, or could come before, them make any
comment that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of such proceeding or impair the
manifest fairness of the process. Nor shall judges make any comment in public or otherwise that might
affect the fair trial of any person or issue.
Sec. 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any proceedings in which they are unable
to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are unable to
decide the matter impartially. Such proceedings include, but are not limited to, instances where:

o The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings;

o The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a material witness in the matter in controversy;

o The judge, or a member of his or her family, has an economic interest in the outcome of
the matter in controversy;

o The judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or
matter in controversy, or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their association, or the
judge or lawyer was a material witness therein;

o The judge's ruling in a lower court is the subject of review;

o The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth civil
degree or to counsel within the fourth civil degree; or

o The judge knows that his or her spouse or child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee, creditor,
fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other
interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings

GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION AND INHIBITION OF JUDGES UNDER THE RULES

OF COURT Mandatory or Compulsory Disqualification

(Rule 131, ROC)

1) He or his wife or his child is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or
otherwise;
2) Relation to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity or to counsel within the 4th
civil degree
3) When he has been an executor, guardian, administrator, trustee or counsel;
4) When he has presided in an inferior court where his ruling or decision is subject to review.

Voluntary Inhibition
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion disqualify himself, for just and valid
reasons other than those mentioned above.

(Rule 137, Section 1)

This leaves the discretion to the judge to decide for himself questions as to whether he will desist
from sitting in case for other just and valid reasons with only his conscience to guide him,
unless he cannot discern for himself his inability to meet the test of the cold neutrality required of
him, in which event the appellate court will see to it that he disqualifies himself.
A decision to disqualify himself is not conclusive and his competency may be determined on application
for mandamus to compel him to act.
Judges decision to continue hearing a case in which he is not legally prohibited from trying
notwithstanding challenge to his objectivity may not constitute reversible error.
The filing of an administrative case against a judge does not disqualify him from hearing a
case. The court has to be shown other than the filing of administrative complaint, act or
conduct of judge indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter being branded
as the stigma of being biased or partial.
(Lorenzo v. Marquez (1988))
DISQUALIFICATION INHIBITION
Basis Specific and exclusive
No specific grounds
BUT there is a broad
basis for such,

i.e., good, sound

ethical grounds Role of the judicial officer
Judicial officer has no
discretion to sit or try
the case
The matter is left to the sound discretion of the judge

Sec. 6. A judge disqualified as stated above may, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on
the records the basis of disqualification. If, based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers
independently of the judge's participation, all agree in writing that the reason for the inhibition is
immaterial or unsubstantial, the judge may then participate in the proceeding. The agreement, signed by
all parties and lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record of the proceedings.

Rules followed by the American Bar Association:

o Each step must be strictly followed. Any deviation renders the waiver invalid. For
example, the judge must affirmatively disclose facts that might be grounds for disqualification.

o In some jurisdictions, the judge must obtain a waiver from both lawyers and parties.
Waivers by lawyers alone will not suffice.